Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 34 CS SCJ 172/24
Rohtash Singh And Ors Vs. Gaon Sabha Of Village Palla And Ors
28.07.2026
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiff, Ms. Vatsala Chauhan.
Ld. counsel for defendant No.2/DDA, Sh. G.S Bhatia, Sh.
Anirudh Garg and Sh. Bharat.
Matter is fixed today for arguments on application u/o XXII
Rule 3 of CPC.
Reply to the application filed on behalf of the defendant.
Copy of the same is supplied to Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
It is submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant No.2/DDA that
the application is not accompanied by surviving members certificate,
therefore, it cannot be ascertained if all the LRs of plaintiff have been
sought to be impleaded by the plaintiff.
It is submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that she will file
a surviving members certificate on or before the NDOH.
It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the
application u/o 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed on behalf of the defendant
No.2/DDA may be disposed off as arguments on the same have already
been addressed.
Vide this order, this court shall adjudicate upon the
application u/o 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed on behalf of defendant no. 2/DDA
seeking deletion from the array of parties.
It has been averred in the application on behalf of defendant
No.2/DDA that the suit property has not been acquired by defendant no.
2/DDA and still falls within the ambit of a rural area which is within the
jurisdiction of SDM/Alipur, therefore, there is no requirement of DDA
being made a party in the present case. It has been prayed that defendant
-- 1 of 2 --
no. 2 i.e. Delhi Development Authority may be deleted from the array of
parties.
Reply to the application was not filed on behalf of the
plaintiff and oral arguments were addressed instead. It is submitted by
Ld. counsel for plaintiff that defendant no. 2/DDA has been arrayed as a
party in the present suit as the suit property is situated in village Palla
which has been declared as Low Density Residential Area (LDRA),
consequently, all the properties of the Gaon Sabha have now vested in
defendant no. 2/DDA, therefore, defendant no. 2 is a necessary party in
the present suit and cannot be deleted.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Perusal of the record reveals that present suit has been filed
by the plaintiff seeking declaration of ownership and permanent
injunction
qua property bearing Khasra No. 30/2022 situated in village
Palla, Delhi against the defendants. The plaintiff has claimed that the
property falls within the jurisdiction of Defendant no. 2/DDA and the
veracity of the afore-mentioned averment can only be tested during the
course of trial, therefore, this court of the view that defendant no. 2/DDA
is a necessary party in the present case and cannot be deleted from the
array of parties.
Accordingly, application u/o 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed on
behalf of the defendant No.2/DDA stands dismissed. Same is disposed of
accordingly.
Put up for arguments on application u/o XXII Rule 3 of
CPC and further proceedings on 01.12.2026.
(Akriti Mahendru)
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court /28.07.2026
-- 2 of 2 --